As a dire obssessor over philosophy (Nitezsche in particular) and an avid self-proclaimed researcher of political and US history, I was thinking about this the other night, when I was stuck in the house with nothing to do...

Has anyone ever realized why there may be differing opinions and counter-facts during discussion? I honestly think it has to do with how history has been portrayed and poorly taught over the centuries. First of all, I wonder how many of you know that almost every textbook from different centuries and areas of the US and world differs. The scary part is, it seems to change in order to fit the current situation. With change, I mean either ambiguity or exaggerated claim.

I believe that history is not so much meant to educate (as almost every concept of history has been repeated one way or another), but moreso created for the rhetorical acts of steering the masses in order to protect and distort image, to obtain public approval.

It seems to me that history books, due to contradicting information between each other, are actual facts that have been taken and distorted and twisted in favor of the current situation and/or events. Like the bible, stories are exaggerated around fact, which is NOT good, as seeing as people take textbooks as absolute fact. Much like religion does the bible, Koran, etc...

For me to solidify my point, I ask "What is the truth"? The answer is that truth cannot be truly found, as it appears that unless we are witnesses to the actual events in question, we cannot rely on the assumptions of most people, as there is always debate, prejudices and differing perspectives that come into play - even in our textbooks. Therefore, truth fades as time goes by, much like gossip is distorted from person to person. History is all speculation, as the interpreters and our government are able to control and manipulate infomation whether it is done though exggeration or ambiguity. This is the evil genius behind it all.


Anyone care to discuss?

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

History is indeed relative.
History is in part interpretation.
History is also in part opinion.

When you add in the political correctness of our high school books - you have the makings of a considerably distorted version.

Consider - up until about 8 years ago, elementary schools were still teaching that Columbus discovered America.
What (IMO) is the worst culprit in how history is taught today - is what is left out via political correctness and the biased slant of the teacher/professor.

Just curious - one of my favorite US History writers is Stephen Ambrose - you read his work much?

I like Kyle Ward. I've read "History in the Making"... haven't dabbled into Stephen Ambrose, but I will definitely consider it.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

Another important thing to remember is that history books, or books in general, are written by people (I know, obviously). I just say that because books are written by different people, in different places, with different budgets, different cultures, different sources, etc...So history cannot be explained perfectly no matter how much we want it.

An important point that seems to have been overlooked here is this: history is written by the victor. Whether that is a military or cultural victory is irrelevant. Whoever is left writes the book and these same people can very easily omit or change things that have happened.

There are many factors that feed into the imperfection of history, as it were.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

Score! Good one

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

History is also written by people who write.... Duh.. i know that sounds pointlessly obvious, but what i mean is that there are thousands of years of human history that are unrecorded, they are pre-history... I find this incredibly sad. In came the civilized with their fancy writing, killing all the natives, its sometimes feels like they never existed. Imagine if at the time of the european invasions into NA, we had volumes of written materials written by natives about how they felt... but we don't, so we forget. And we our left with white people glorifying themselves..... and we believe it.

Anybody ever wonder what the world would be like if history was written from the point of view of women and children? I bet we would not be so desirous to wage war.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Andrew makes a good point. I wonder how the aborignes would view history compared to modern white Australians, or how the native Indians would view history compared to history as potrayed by white Americans ...

Yeah, it does pose an interesting question.

__________________
"Bring the boys back home!"--Pink Floyd

NFA JJG 42-95

Free People/Free Markets

Following the Path of the Beam

A couple of points upon reviewing this thread.

1. Stephen Ambrose is a 2nd rate 'pop-culture' historian and a serial plagarist.

2. Western history has been almost an exclusive preserve of 'women' for about the last thirty years. All academic history is now 'social history' (and 'empowering').

And two of history's women rulers (that come to mind) top out most male rulers for their passion for killing their subjects.
Methinks putting women on a pedastal of innocence is more dangerous than the tradition of ignoring them.

And women have proven that they are as bloodthirsty as males. As the Spartan mothers would say to their husbands/sons going to war - "bring back your shield - or be brought back on it". Males do not have a monopoly on savagry. It is apparently a human trait, not a male one.

For anyone who is interested in getting a better perspective on this topic, I highly reccomend the following:

Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States", which details history from the perspective of the underdog or common man, from Columbus' travels to the War of Terror. Includes sections on racism, unions, wars, human rights.

Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", how the media influences our view of history, our perception of importance, and our decision making processes. A must for anyone who wants to become a Critical Thinker.

Another cute aside is a short clip from George Carlin, wherein he identifies the culprits behind our lack of education.
Myspace.com

Another point is language itself. Ancient to modern sources must be translated, and no source language can be perfectly translated to the target language.

Howard Zinn's book, from what I've read from reviews, does nothing to promote historical accuracy.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I was thinking more of the fact that women and children are most often the victims of war throughout history. Im not making the claim that women should make history any more than males do, only that the history of civilization is told from the male/invader point of view, overwhelmingly. Im not even really all that interested in the history from western 'empowered' women, im wondering more about how would history appear, for example, from the perspective of Israeli/Palestine women and children, rather than from the predominantly male observers who record it (robert fisk, noam chomsky, dershowitz, etc...), yet do not really experience it. Or what will the history of modern iraq look like from the perspective of women and children, rather than from the perspective of the invaders living in the west, (which we will undoubtedly get more so than any other perspective). Or what would the women and children of somalia say, so far my detailed knowledge of that situation comes from the Canadian general Romeo Dallaire....

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

This whole concept almost makes you go crazy because you just don't know what to believe. This is another reason why when people ask for "proof" or "facts" I don't do it... it's almost pointless.

__________________
Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

- George Orwell, 1984

Whose reviews are you reading, Strom Thurmond's?

And define historical accuracy.

Is it not accurate to portray Columbus from the perspective of the population he oppressed to gain his objectives? Must we still view him as the brave explorer who "discovered" America, centuries after the Vikings?

Is it not accurate to portray the settling of America from the perspective of the American Indians, to whom we lied, made false promises, and then shuttled from place to place when we wanted their land? Should we keep stereotyping them as bloodthirsty savages who killed helpless settlers?

Is it not accurate to portray the economic development of the southern colonies from the perspective of indentured servants and slaves, or the Industrial Revolution from the perspective of immigrants, women and children? Or is the only important factor the glorifying of the United States and our elusive American Dream?

Should we condemn history to be viewed only from the perspective of good old white male presidents and politicians, the business tycoons, slave owners and land holders?

Perhaps we could allow just a little bit of history to include the perspective of minorities, political adversaries, blue collar workers, and the nations we so handily invade in order to foist our belief systems upon them?

I am not saying that Zinn is unbiased in his viewpoint. Just that he actually offers us a different viewpoint than what has been rammed down our throats through our distorted educational system; a history told from the viewpoint of the western elitists. It's time for a different perspective.